Srinagar, Sept. 14, KDC: Holding that a bald assertion labeling a person as an “Over Ground Worker” (OGW) cannot serve as a ground to deprive personal liberty, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed a preventive detention order passed under the Public Safety Act (PSA) against an Anantnag resident.
Allowing a habeas corpus petition, Justice M. A. Chowdhary set aside detention order No. 18/DMA/PSA/DET/2025 dated April 29, 2025, passed by the District Magistrate, Anantnag, against Ishfaq Ahmad Wani, a resident of Baghwadi Nowshera, Srigufwara. The court directed authorities to release him forthwith from preventive custody, provided his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
The detaining authority had placed Wani under preventive detention on the grounds that he was allegedly operating as an OGW for the proscribed Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) outfit and acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The detention was anchored primarily to an eight-year-old case, FIR No. 60/2016, registered at Police Station Srigufwara under Section 307 (attempt to murder) and rioting provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code.
Scrutinizing the records, the Bench observed that the petitioner had already been enlarged on bail in the 2016 criminal case by a competent court, a vital development that the District Magistrate completely failed to take into account while deriving subjective satisfaction.
“Preventive detention cannot rest upon mere labels. The authority must disclose the factual position which connects the alleged activities of the detenue with the statutory purpose for which the extraordinary power is exercised. A bald assertion that a person is an ‘OGW’ or that his activities are prejudicial to the security of the State/UT of J&K, without sufficient particulars enabling him to understand what precisely weighed with the detaining authority, does not meet the constitutional standard,” the Bench observed.
The court noted that while past conduct may be relevant, there must be a live and proximate link between antecedent events and the apprehension of future prejudicial conduct. The Bench observed that relying on an old 2016 FIR, where the link had snapped, combined with non-consideration of the bail granted to the detenue, vitiated the detention order.
The Bench also took serious note of the fact that the grounds of detention were an almost verbatim reproduction of the police dossier, except for changes in paragraph numbering.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, the High Court ruled that a detaining authority cannot function as a mere rubber stamp or conduit for police dossiers, but must independently evaluate the allegations before curbing an individual’s personal liberty.
The Bench further held that furnishing vague and generalized assertions without concrete particulars deprived the detenue of his fundamental right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the PSA to make an effective representation against his detention. The court clarified that the subsequent rejection of the representation by the government could not cure an order that suffered from a foundational non-application of mind.
Concluding that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed on conjectures or stale antecedents, the High Court quashed the detention order and allowed the petition.
Advocate Mohammad Ibrahim Wani appeared for the petitioner, while Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway along with Assisting Counsel Nadiya Abdullah represented the Union Territory administration. (KDC)
